I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

I do not see how what happened in the UK and Nice are connected. Since in Nice, the Association which aligned itself with the Exarchate had been looking after the Cathedral for the last 90 years and the Russian state now demanded it back. This is not related to a universal jurisdiction but rather to allowing those who live there to continue to worship how they wish.

Again I believe that our efforts are better spent in living and proclaiming the Faith.

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

I do not see how what happened in the UK and Nice are connected. Since in Nice, the Association which aligned itself with the Exarchate had been looking after the Cathedral for the last 90 years and the Russian state now demanded it back. This is not related to a universal jurisdiction but rather to allowing those who live there to continue to worship how they wish.

Again I believe that our efforts are better spent in living and proclaiming the Faith.

In XC,

Deacon Philip

Amen! We spend far too much time, actually waste our time, quibbling among ourselves over nonsense while heretics like Harold Camping poison the mindset of many secular minded people, including our faithful, with his rapture and judgment day foolishness. Many of us here in the states have lived through self inflicted jurdisdictional wars in which we let the civil courts resolve our disputes. The only winners were the devil and the lawyers.

It is the same sort of legal progression as Royal Colony of Massachusetts > Commonwealth of Massachusetts>with some of the sovereign power ceded to the United States of America, with some retained by the free and independent Commonwealth. Applies to any of the original colonies which became states.

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

I do not see how what happened in the UK and Nice are connected.

for the sack of clarity and brevity, I'm going to cut through the Byzantine diplomatics:on the one end, the exarchate was formed by receiving the schismatic Met. Evlogius-appointed by Patriarch St. Tikhon of Moscow as its exarch of Western Europe and sitting on the Synod of ROCOR-when he changed his policy of giving in to the demand of Met. Sergius of loyalty to the Soviet State, signaled by his taking part in anti-Soviet activity in London. 14 years later, he was reconciled with Moscow and returned to the Patriarchate, but when he reposed a year later the Phanar took advantage of the situation and continued the schism under its own aegis (thus, btw, the Exarchate of Moscow and ROCOR looked after the Nice Cathedral 13 years before the Phanar grabbed it for 14 years, before it returned to Moscow for two years before it fell to the Phanar again for 64 years until today). Six years ago history repeated itself when the Phanar's exarchate received the schismatic and suspended Bp. Basil Osborne, who tried to take his diocese (and not just those who supported him) into schism and deliever it to the Phanar. Since he demanded from all in the diocese the obedience he did not give his Patriarch and Holy Synod, he took the Phanariot mythology of canon 28 as justification and legal argument. The London courts didn't buy it, and returned the diocese to the rightful jurisdiction-Moscow. Rather than accept that, the schismatics formed a vicarate for the Phanar while Bp. Basil-now titular bishop of Amphipolis sat on the council of the Phanar's Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe for the few years, after which he sought and received laitization.

Again I believe that our efforts are better spent in living and proclaiming the Faith.

we are, and ultramarist teachings have no part in it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

I do not see how what happened in the UK and Nice are connected. Since in Nice, the Association which aligned itself with the Exarchate had been looking after the Cathedral for the last 90 years and the Russian state now demanded it back. This is not related to a universal jurisdiction but rather to allowing those who live there to continue to worship how they wish.

Again I believe that our efforts are better spent in living and proclaiming the Faith.

In XC,

Deacon Philip

Amen! We spend far too much time, actually waste our time, quibbling among ourselves over nonsense while heretics like Harold Camping poison the mindset of many secular minded people, including our faithful, with his rapture and judgment day foolishness. Many of us here in the states have lived through self inflicted jurdisdictional wars in which we let the civil courts resolve our disputes. The only winners were the devil and the lawyers.

I often wonder if we had been more vigilent in nipping the grandiosity of Rome in the bud, would all of the Patriarchate of the West still be in Orthodox communion with the Catholic Church.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 12:33:50 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

ultramarist heresy? care to explain?

The Old Rome was beyond the mountains-ultra mont(anist)-seperating it from the world over which it claimed universal jurisdiction. The Phanar in New Rome claims universal jurisdiction over the lands beyond the seas-ultra mar(ist)-hence a more appropriate title. Sort of like France d'outre mer.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 02:38:12 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

ultramarist heresy? care to explain?

The Old Rome was beyond the mountains-ultra mont(anist)-seperating it from the world over which it claimed universal jurisdiction. The Phanar in New Rome claims universal jurisdiction over the lands beyond the seas-ultra mar(ist)-hence a more appropriate title. Sort of like France d'outre mer.

The next question: What do Chalcedon Canon 28 and this bit of gratuitous Phanar-bashing have to do with the subject of this thread? Can we not have one thread on this forum without you turning it into your soap box for pursuing your personal vendetta against the EP?

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

ultramarist heresy? care to explain?

The Old Rome was beyond the mountains-ultra mont(anist)-seperating it from the world over which it claimed universal jurisdiction. The Phanar in New Rome claims universal jurisdiction over the lands beyond the seas-ultra mar(ist)-hence a more appropriate title. Sort of like France d'outre mer.

The next question: What do Chalcedon Canon 28 and this bit of gratuitous Phanar-bashing have to do with the subject of this thread? Can we not have one thread on this forum without you turning it into your soap box for pursuing your personal vendetta against the EP?

when the Phanar recalls its tentacles, and stops using them to cradle schismatics in its attempt to extend its reach.

Not gratuitous at all: Bp. Osborn attempted to serve up the UK diocese to the Phanar, who wanted it-judging on the arguments the bishop advanced in court for the Phanar-to further its canon 28 mythology, EXACTLY in the same manner as the Nice Cathedral was annexed by the Phanar. The Nice Cathedral, btw, returned to Moscow at the same time the London Cathedral did under the same Met. Eulogy, but whereas the Phanar was able to take the Nice Cathedral again, it was not able to do so with the London Cathedral. Bp. Osborn's antics, as part of the same Exarchate as the Nice Cathedral, was the revival of this attempt. Now the attempt on the Nice Cathedral has been undone, as the revived attempt on the London Cathedral also failed.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 03:41:22 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

ultramarist heresy? care to explain?

The Old Rome was beyond the mountains-ultra mont(anist)-seperating it from the world over which it claimed universal jurisdiction. The Phanar in New Rome claims universal jurisdiction over the lands beyond the seas-ultra mar(ist)-hence a more appropriate title. Sort of like France d'outre mer.

The next question: What do Chalcedon Canon 28 and this bit of gratuitous Phanar-bashing have to do with the subject of this thread? Can we not have one thread on this forum without you turning it into your soap box for pursuing your personal vendetta against the EP?

when the Phanar recalls its tentacles, and stops using them to cradle schismatics in its attempt to extend its reach.

Do you mean to imply that the Paris Exarchate and/or those currently worshiping in the Nice cathedral are schismatics? Would you care to explain that slur?

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

ultramarist heresy? care to explain?

The Old Rome was beyond the mountains-ultra mont(anist)-seperating it from the world over which it claimed universal jurisdiction. The Phanar in New Rome claims universal jurisdiction over the lands beyond the seas-ultra mar(ist)-hence a more appropriate title. Sort of like France d'outre mer.

The next question: What do Chalcedon Canon 28 and this bit of gratuitous Phanar-bashing have to do with the subject of this thread? Can we not have one thread on this forum without you turning it into your soap box for pursuing your personal vendetta against the EP?

when the Phanar recalls its tentacles, and stops using them to cradle schismatics in its attempt to extend its reach.

Do you mean to imply that the Paris Exarchate and/or those currently worshiping in the Nice cathedral are schismatics?

I don't know the specific opinion of the Patriarchate of Moscow on the Nice Cathedral and Paris Exarchate at present. It would seem to be the same as the former bishop Osborne and his followers: no one expelled them, or even threatened to do so. They were just not allowed to drag the whole diocese with them to Canossa on the Bosphoros. Moscow simply insisted on its canonical (and legal) rights, versus interference from the Phanar to profit from schism.

Met. Eulogii had gone into schism from both the Patriarchate of Moscow which had appointed him to head its exarchate in France and from ROCOR on whose Synod he sat. Being reconciled to Moscow in his final years, along with his parishes, and now with the regularization of ROCOR status with the Act of Canonical Communion, there is no doubt to whom the parishes of Met. Eulogy belongs. After his death, however, the Phanar once again alienated the French parishes from their Mother Church for no reason that I know of, particularly as the UK parishes remained with their common Mother Church.

I know that the idea that one gets to pick and choose their bishops' jurisdiction has gained popularity in the so called Diaspora, but that's no reason to look at it as the aberration it is.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I find some of the triumphalist responses to this news saddening, and based on mis-information.

My experience from within the Exarchate is that she is no more liberal (and possibly less) than the OCA. She recognises her Russian heritage but at the same time is trying to proclaim the Orthodox faith where she is, both in place and time. Thus cradle and convert Orthodox are welcome.

The calendar is not necessarily a definition of Russian-ness, the OCA uses the new calendar. Within the MP I know of parishes which are on the Julian, the revised-Julian and the Gregorian. The Exarchate is split roughly 50:50 between the Julian and the revised Julian. Both the Cathedral in Paris and in Nice are on the old (Julian) Calendar.

In the Cathedral in Nice the services are mostly in Slavonic and are no more the subject of innovation than any typical Russian Church.

The views of the parishoners do not seem to have mattered in the court case, because, as far as I can understand the majority (especially those who had lived there for a number of years) wanted to maintain the status quo.

Had the Exarchate not looked after the Cathedral for the last 90 years, there would be nothing to hand back.

I believe our energy should be better spent working together to proclaim the Faith rather than fighting over possession of Church buildings. What kind of witness does this give about our faith?

Alas! Since the Phanar has made a bid to universal jurisdiction, an "Ultramarist" heresy as it were, and submitted this in the like court battle in the UK, it goes far beyond the issue of possession of Church buildings.

ultramarist heresy? care to explain?

The Old Rome was beyond the mountains-ultra mont(anist)-seperating it from the world over which it claimed universal jurisdiction. The Phanar in New Rome claims universal jurisdiction over the lands beyond the seas-ultra mar(ist)-hence a more appropriate title. Sort of like France d'outre mer.

The next question: What do Chalcedon Canon 28 and this bit of gratuitous Phanar-bashing have to do with the subject of this thread? Can we not have one thread on this forum without you turning it into your soap box for pursuing your personal vendetta against the EP?

when the Phanar recalls its tentacles, and stops using them to cradle schismatics in its attempt to extend its reach.

Not gratuitous at all: Bp. Osborn attempted to serve up the UK diocese to the Phanar, who wanted it-judging on the arguments the bishop advanced in court for the Phanar-to further its canon 28 mythology, EXACTLY in the same manner as the Nice Cathedral was annexed by the Phanar. The Nice Cathedral, btw, returned to Moscow at the same time the London Cathedral did under the same Met. Eulogy, but whereas the Phanar was able to take the Nice Cathedral again, it was not able to do so with the London Cathedral. Bp. Osborn's antics, as part of the same Exarchate as the Nice Cathedral, was the revival of this attempt. Now the attempt on the Nice Cathedral has been undone, as the revived attempt on the London Cathedral also failed.

The attempt to hand the UK Diocese of the MP over to the Phanar should have been rejected by the EP - as the Diocese belonged to the MP and colluding with the disgraced Bishop Basil was strategically inappropriate and ethically bankrupt. It is no different really than what the Phanar has done supporting an EP rump in Estonia, historically and induitably part of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The claims of the Phanar to some kind of universal jurisdiction over the seas is wrong. By all means, let the EP ppen its own diocese or exarchates where it wants, but it should not be on the basis of some kind of claim over the right of other Orthodox Churches. The Russian Church is in more than 140 countries, when one adds the MP and ROCOR. In some instances many generations of evangelical effort have gone into planting Russian Orthodoxy in places like China, Korea, the US etc.

Let the Phanar look within to its own historical boundaries and seek to make a meaningful Orthodox community within Turkey and the former Ottoman Empire, beyond the walls of the Phanar. The restoration of a Russian cathedral built by the Russian state to the Russian Church is a non-brainer. Perhaps getting St. Sophia back would be an appropriate focus for the Phanar today.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Ending schism or irregularity is a laudable thing to do. The EP can be congratulated for this. Unfortunately the EP should have ended the schism by moderating - brokering a return of the Paris Exarchate to canonical obedience to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia. It should still do so now.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Do you see the Exarchate existing somehow apart from the people in it?

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Ending schism or irregularity is a laudable thing to do. The EP can be congratulated for this. Unfortunately the EP should have ended the schism by moderating - brokering a return of the Paris Exarchate to canonical obedience to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia. It should still do so now.

It would do better by promoting the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France (the local EA) into the Holy Synod of France.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Ending schism or irregularity is a laudable thing to do. The EP can be congratulated for this. Unfortunately the EP should have ended the schism by moderating - brokering a return of the Paris Exarchate to canonical obedience to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia. It should still do so now.

It would do better by promoting the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France (the local EA) into the Holy Synod of France.

Given the topsy turvy history of the Church in France - in both the Russian Church, the French Western-rite Church, the EP etc, maybe such an idea is ahead of its time. A long period of stability under the MP with the support and resources of the MP would offer maturity and stability.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Ending schism or irregularity is a laudable thing to do. The EP can be congratulated for this. Unfortunately the EP should have ended the schism by moderating - brokering a return of the Paris Exarchate to canonical obedience to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia. It should still do so now.

It would do better by promoting the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France (the local EA) into the Holy Synod of France.

Given the topsy turvy history of the Church in France - in both the Russian Church, the French Western-rite Church, the EP etc, maybe such an idea is ahead of its time. A long period of stability under the MP with the support and resources of the MP would offer maturity and stability.

No, France, nor anywhere else, is not the battlefield for proxy wars between Moscow and the Phanar. Part of the topsy turvy history of the Church in France (and elsewhere) resulted from being hitched to the long period of instability in New Rome and Third Rome this past century. Any such support and resources should be directed at having the Church of France stand on its own.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Ending schism or irregularity is a laudable thing to do. The EP can be congratulated for this. Unfortunately the EP should have ended the schism by moderating - brokering a return of the Paris Exarchate to canonical obedience to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia. It should still do so now.

It would do better by promoting the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France (the local EA) into the Holy Synod of France.

Given the topsy turvy history of the Church in France - in both the Russian Church, the French Western-rite Church, the EP etc, maybe such an idea is ahead of its time. A long period of stability under the MP with the support and resources of the MP would offer maturity and stability.

Btw, long usually means indefinite, i.e. never, which is NOT what France needs. Nor the UK, nor Italy, and perhaps a couple of other places.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Ending schism or irregularity is a laudable thing to do. The EP can be congratulated for this. Unfortunately the EP should have ended the schism by moderating - brokering a return of the Paris Exarchate to canonical obedience to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia. It should still do so now.

It would do better by promoting the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France (the local EA) into the Holy Synod of France.

Given the topsy turvy history of the Church in France - in both the Russian Church, the French Western-rite Church, the EP etc, maybe such an idea is ahead of its time. A long period of stability under the MP with the support and resources of the MP would offer maturity and stability.

Btw, long usually means indefinite, i.e. never, which is NOT what France needs. Nor the UK, nor Italy, and perhaps a couple of other places.

I think American Church history would have been different but for the Bolshevik revolution. I think the Russian Church has a history of developing meaningful local Churches - Japanese Orthodox Church, Korean and Indonesian Orthodox Churches, the MP today in Thailand. I think the Russian Church can offer stability and wise leadership in the Western countries.

I know I harp about the wretched calendar, but if we cannot agree on the calendar how on earth can we have national western Churches? For God's sake I think the new calendar Churches returning to the Orthodox calendar would create such a goodwill that much could come of unifying the Church within countries. 25% of Orthodoxy holding out on the vast majority who adhere to the traditional calendar. I cannot understand the stubbornness in this when it has caused such grief that never would have happened if crazy reform had not happened.

And then there is the Western-rite in France and elsewhere that has ZERO popularity with the Phanar, not much with Moscow and that is another layer of deep complication that we didn't need.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Ending schism or irregularity is a laudable thing to do. The EP can be congratulated for this. Unfortunately the EP should have ended the schism by moderating - brokering a return of the Paris Exarchate to canonical obedience to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia. It should still do so now.

It would do better by promoting the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France (the local EA) into the Holy Synod of France.

Given the topsy turvy history of the Church in France - in both the Russian Church, the French Western-rite Church, the EP etc, maybe such an idea is ahead of its time. A long period of stability under the MP with the support and resources of the MP would offer maturity and stability.

Btw, long usually means indefinite, i.e. never, which is NOT what France needs. Nor the UK, nor Italy, and perhaps a couple of other places.

I think American Church history would have been different but for the Bolshevik revolution. I think the Russian Church has a history of developing meaningful local Churches - Japanese Orthodox Church, Korean and Indonesian Orthodox Churches, the MP today in Thailand. I think the Russian Church can offer stability and wise leadership in the Western countries.

The problem is that at times it doesn't seem to keep its Russification in check. All the rest of the Churches in France, except for Antioch, have Mother Churches who are at least partly if not totally in the European Union and most in NATO. Russia has its own situation (as does, btw, Ukraine), which is not that of France, or the rest of the West.

I cannot understand the stubbornness in this when it has caused such grief that never would have happened if crazy reform had not happened.

Had the Bolshevik interruption not happened and canonoized and set the Russian Church in the cement of 1917, the Russian Church (and the rest, I expect) would be on the New Calendar. And would drop its yers and yats and superfluous hard signs.

Truth isn't up for a vote, 100%, let alone 75%, does not determine Truth.

If the Russian Church is dropped from the equation, the percentage of Old versus New Calendars reverses. We are not all Russians, nor need we be.

And then there is the Western-rite in France and elsewhere that has ZERO popularity with the Phanar, not much with Moscow and that is another layer of deep complication that we didn't need.

Another reason to make it France's business (as it was under St. John Maximovich) and no one else's.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 11:43:57 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If the Phanar wants to contribute to Orthodox unity let it hand the Paris Exarchate back to the Mother Russian Church. With the ending of any reason for Russian Churches to be separated from the Patriarchate - and with the example of the successful integration of ROCOR into the Russian Church - while preserving some features of synodical autonomy there is no reason for the Phanar to hold on to the Paris Exarchate of the Russian Church.

Ending schism or irregularity is a laudable thing to do. The EP can be congratulated for this. Unfortunately the EP should have ended the schism by moderating - brokering a return of the Paris Exarchate to canonical obedience to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia. It should still do so now.

It would do better by promoting the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France (the local EA) into the Holy Synod of France.

Given the topsy turvy history of the Church in France - in both the Russian Church, the French Western-rite Church, the EP etc, maybe such an idea is ahead of its time. A long period of stability under the MP with the support and resources of the MP would offer maturity and stability.

Btw, long usually means indefinite, i.e. never, which is NOT what France needs. Nor the UK, nor Italy, and perhaps a couple of other places.

I think American Church history would have been different but for the Bolshevik revolution. I think the Russian Church has a history of developing meaningful local Churches - Japanese Orthodox Church, Korean and Indonesian Orthodox Churches, the MP today in Thailand. I think the Russian Church can offer stability and wise leadership in the Western countries.

The problem is that at times it doesn't seem to keep its Russification in check. All the rest of the Churches in France, except for Antioch, have Mother Churches who are at least partly if not totally in the European Union and most in NATO. Russia has its own situation (as does, btw, Ukraine), which is not that of France, or the rest of the West.

I cannot understand the stubbornness in this when it has caused such grief that never would have happened if crazy reform had not happened.

Had the Bolshevik interruption not happened and canonoized and set the Russian Church in the cement of 1917, the Russian Church (and the rest, I expect) would be on the New Calendar. And would drop its yers and yats and superfluous hard signs.

Truth isn't up for a vote, 100%, let alone 75%, does not determine Truth.

If the Russian Church is dropped from the equation, the percentage of Old versus New Calendars reverses. We are not all Russians, nor need we be.

And then there is the Western-rite in France and elsewhere that has ZERO popularity with the Phanar, not much with Moscow and that is another layer of deep complication that we didn't need.

Another reason to make it France's business (as it was under St. John Maximovich) and no one else's.

Well, Ialmisry and I are in complete agreement on this one! (I mean the above quotes, not his overall view of the Ecumenical Patriarchate!)

IMHO, the continued romanticization by many Orthodox of 19th century Russia and the Orthodox Church of that era is something that simply confounds me on many levels. On one level, as a Slav, the majesty, tradition and beauty of the restored Russian Orthodox Church touches my soul in a way the Greek Church could never reach. Yet - on a deeper, more personal level, I can not get past the imperialist ambitions of the Slavophils and Russophiles who would impose their world view and religious praxis on the rest of us.

Frankly I think that the Phanar and the local Greek Orthodox derivatives don't have any of the missionary focus of the Russian Church. Now I know the EP is doing missionary work in Singapore, Hong Kong and Africa, but I don't see any serious missionary effort in the West at all. I have been told that this is because of ecumenism and an unwillingness to confront Anglican and Romans about their errors.

I don't see any attempt to impose Russian-ness on Russian Orthodox converts - whether clergy or lay. The numbers of convert clergy is high, the number of monastic converts is good and the amount of English/Indonesian/Thai/Japanese/Korean/Papuan/Italian/German/French etc etc used in Russian Orthodox Churches both MP and ROCOR is high - both in straight English etc or mixed-language.

In Australia the Greek Orthodox EP Archdiocese only have English liturgies on Saturdays - monthly generally and very limited English apart from the Gospel and Our Father - in some, not all parishes. I don't know what the situation in the US is - where so many Greek churches have electric organs, pews etc - one would expect a higher percentage of English. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

I don't see any imperialistic ambitions at all of the Russian Church. The fact is historically we have been and are in most countries in the world. The Russian Church has always seen the Russian diaspora as the will of the Lord to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to return heterodox to the Church, to ordain local men, to create local Orthodox Churches.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Frankly I think that the Phanar and the local Greek Orthodox derivatives don't have any of the missionary focus of the Russian Church. Now I know the EP is doing missionary work in Singapore, Hong Kong and Africa, but I don't see any serious missionary effort in the West at all. I have been told that this is because of ecumenism and an unwillingness to confront Anglican and Romans about their errors

Or it could be that the relavtively small Greek Church (all its branches all together make up well under 10% of all Orthodox) is overstretched not only in Singapore, Hong Kong and Africa but in rebuilding the Church of Albania from scratch and helping the other Churches of the East (e.g. Romania) get back on their feet (I have a variety of materials distributed for free or reduced price by the Greeks in Romania in Romanian). And pleasing the Anglicans and the Vatican is not a Greek only policy: the primate of North America carried the title of "Bishop of Alaska" for decades in order not to provoke the Anglicans, so too why there is no Russian Diocese of Great Britain, but the Diocese of Sourozh.

Btw, the EP did take all those Guatamalans last year.

But the Greeks do have their Phanariots and phyletists, that much is also true.

I don't see any attempt to impose Russian-ness on Russian Orthodox converts - whether clergy or lay. The numbers of convert clergy is high, the number of monastic converts is good and the amount of English/Indonesian/Thai/Japanese/Korean/Papuan/Italian/German/French etc etc used in Russian Orthodox Churches both MP and ROCOR is high - both in straight English etc or mixed-language.

All my contact with ROCOR (I've never got the local MP parish before it closed, but from what I understand, it was the same) has been ALL Russian. But then, the parisioners were as far as I could tell were Russian (as in from Russia). I've been told by others that there are other less ethnic parishes, but I can't personally comment on them.

I was at a foot washing ceremony a few years back, at a Greek Church with a Greek bishop I won't name (but has a reputation as an ethnarch). The church was full, and I can swear on my life that I was the only non-Greek there. The parish, by the way, is not known as English friendly, at least I've never heard it so. Anyway, during the service the bishop would switch from time to time to English, and would chant LOUD when the chanters and congregation would not switch to English also. Afterward, the bishop (again, not known as a English lover) spoke to the congregation about these lovely services we have that no one knows about, and perhaps we hide because they are not in English and no one understands or sees them, so they can come to Orthodoxy, which is our mission, to bring Orthodoxy to the Americans. He said the same in both Greek and English. Odd.

Btw, the Church in question now has an English priest, on loan from the OCA, attached to it.

The Russian Church has always seen the Russian diaspora as the will of the Lord to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to return heterodox to the Church, to ordain local men, to create local Orthodox Churches.

Although the Russian is, as opposed to the Greek Church for instance, on record for taking it as a matter of policy that local Churches should be preened for autocephaly, and the example of the OCA is the only instance where autocephaly didn't have to be basically snatched from the Mother Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You have a point with the autocephaly of the Metropolia in the US. That may have had more to do with politics about ROCOR as much as anything. It would be interesting to know if such autocephaly would be granted today.

The genuine warmth of the rapproachment between Metropolitan Jonah and Metropolitan Hilarion, and between Metropolitan Hilarion and Patriarch Kirill will have implications for the future of the OCA, ROCOR and MP.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

In other times I might have a go at Isa's continuing jihad against the EP but in this case his is probably more right than wrong. I too have been disturbed at the EP's actions especially in western Europe and the far east. However, I think Isa errs in including Africa in his broad sweep.To my knowledge the Patriarch and Pope of Alexandria is doing a creditable job of evangelizing in his see. In the past I was on an Orthodox BBS out of South Africa - a Russian based one. In Africa perhaps is the only canonically ordered situation of several jurisdictions with the Russian parishes existing with the permission and blessings of the Patriarch of Alexandria, commemorating him properly when appropriate for the liturgy being served.I do not see the EP at fault (or involved directly at all here). Got some more info, Isa?

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

In fairness to SubdeaconDavid, that only started this year (2011). It also doesn't reference Brisbane, which has one parish with a weekly Liturgy in English on Saturday evenings for almost 20 years. And, while Sydney has taken a great leap forward, it is near-alone even in this - Melbourne and Perth have one place where there are monthly English services (usually Liturgies), Adelaide, Canberra and Darwin none AFAIK (and I'm not sure about Hobart).

However, anyone familiar with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia can recognise these as massive steps, which anyone in favour of English in services in Australia would (and should) laud. May God grant much spiritual fruit!

Thank you Subdeacon..... in regard to GOA in Hobart, Fr. Timothy at Holy Trinity uses some English in services - not all - but quite a bit. At the other parish which was only made canonical I think last year, they only use Greek as far as I know. Fr. Timothy also has a Russian subdeacon and some Slavs, Copts etc attend also. The parish also has a Greek and English bookstore.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco